On 19/08/2010 5:25 PM, Duncan Murdoch wrote:
On 19/08/2010 5:07 PM, Kevin Coombes wrote:
> I use it, frequently. The idea for it goes back to some of Knuth's
> original literate programming ideas for developing weave and tangle when
> he was writing TeX (the program). I want to be able to document the
> pieces of some complex algorithm without having to see all of the gory
> details. For instance, I have code that looks like the following.
> (Note that this is typed on the fly rather than copied from actual
> source, so there may be typos.)
Okay, thanks. I'll keep it in. So now I have a question: suppose
you have an error (syntax error at this point, maybe some other kinds of
error in the future) in the <<getInfoAboutThisSample>> chunk, but that
chunk wasn't eval'd, mainloop was eval'd. So the error is going to be
reported as occurring in chunk mainloop, but with a line number from
somewhere else in the file. Is that a problem?
I was out of town for a week, but I'm back now, and have just committed
these changes. Hopefully the reports of syntax errors will be a little
more helpful now. I don't think I'll have time to make the reports of
execution time errors better before the 2.12.0 release.
Duncan Murdoch
Duncan Murdoch
>
> <<mainloop,keep.source=TRUE,expand=FALSE>>=
> for (i in 1:nSamples) {
> <<getInfoAboutThisSample>>
> for (j in 1:nChromosomes) {
> <<getChromosomeDataForCurrentSample>>
> <<normalizeChromosomeData>>
> <<findSegments>>
> <<computeSignificance>>
> <<writeResults>>
> }
> }
> @
>
> Each of the <<chunks>> is itself a fairly long piece of code defined and
> documented somewhere else. (Some of them may themselves be written in
> the same form to reduce the final size of a chunk to something a human
> has a chance of understanding. That's the difference between weave and
> tangle in the original implementation.) By blocking expansion, I can
> focus on the main steps without having them lost in pages and pages of code.
>
> So I vote strongly for retaining "expand=FALSE".
>
> Best,
> Kevin
>
> Duncan Murdoch wrote:
>> On 19/08/2010 4:29 PM, Claudia Beleites wrote:
>>> I never used it.
>>>
>>> I got curious, though. What would be a situation that benefits of
>>> this option?
>>>
>> When I put it in, I thought it would be for people who were writing
>> about Sweave.
>>
>> Duncan Murdoch
>>
>>> Maybe a use case could be found by "brute force" (grep all .Rnw files
>>> on CRAN for the option?
>>>
>>> Claudia
>>>
>>>
>> ______________________________________________
>> R-devel@r-project.org mailing list
>> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
______________________________________________
R-devel@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
